Posted by Cam W. on August 24, 2001, at 0:29:06
In reply to Re: TRUEHOPE nutrient supplementation, posted by good4u on August 23, 2001, at 23:38:31
Good - I had thought that orthomolecular went out of vogue in the late 1970's or early 1980's. There was no proof of it working, outside of the claims of a few cases reports (which had also been questioned). I do know Pauling's work, but haven't heard of (or forgot about) the other 2 gentlemen.
Pauling's ideas were based on some false ideas about physiology. He thought that 10g of vitamin C a day would lead to longevity and health (until some people's kidney's shut down and a few others had their blood become too acidic). Pauling thought that the antioxidant effects and free radical scavaging effects of vitamin C would increase, the more a person took. More seldom equates to better. We now know that the body only uses as much of a water soluble vitamin that it needs and excretes the rest.
As for the fat soluble vitamins (which build up in the body, if taken in excess) and many minerals, taking too much can lead to interference in the processes they are involved in and can cause damage to other body organs.
Mental disorders seem to be due to electrical disturbances or malfunctions (in their most basic form). If one is going to claim that something will help or "cure" it should ideally be shown that the electrical flow is normalized (BS detectors should go off every time cure is associated with a treatment for a mental illness). In psychiatry, we do this directly (fMRI, PET, SPECT - though, these methods are still in their infancy) or indirectly, via validated tests, physiology, pharmacology and clinical experience.
If the mechanism of action of a treatment is not known, it better have large volumes of independently validated experimental evidence to back up the assertations of their proponents.
If something sound too good to be true; it is either the patience and resolve of my wife, or it IS too good to be true. - Cam